A.07.24_W9127N-15-R-0060_Transformers_U0006.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the draw ings, revise Factor 6 - Small Business Participation Plan in section L & M (chagnes are in red) and provide a copy of the site visit sign-in sheet. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Oct-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9127N-15-R-0060

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Aug-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Oct-2015

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - CECT-NWP

333 SW FIRST AVE

PORTLAND OR 97204-3495

W9127N 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9127N-15-R-0060

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION FOR OFFERORS

Submission of Proposals - In order for your proposal to be considered, it MUST be prepared in ENGLISH, and must be submitted as a hardcopy original and three (3) copies; and on a CD-ROM:

BY HAND OR COURIER TO:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

Robert Duncan Plaza 333 SW 1st Ave, 10th Floor Portland Oregon Attention: Gary Weir - CENWP-CT-S

SURFACE MAIL ADDRESS:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NWP

P. O. Box 2946 Portland Oregon 97204-2946 Attention: Gary Weir - CENWP-CT-S Proposal must be received no later than date and time stated in block 9, SF 33

NOTE THAT E-MAIL SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

Incomplete proposals: Offerors who fail to submit a complete proposal may be excluded and thus receive no further consideration for award. Any costs related to proposal preparation will not be reimbursed by the Government.

ENVELOPE(S) PURSUANT TO FAR 14.201-5

Envelope(s) shall be plainly marked with the following information:

Solicitation No. W9127N-15-R-0060

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L-1 INTRODUCTION

Your firm is invited to submit a proposal in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) Number W9127N-15-R-0060 for the project entitled “Transformer Replacement, Portland District: The Dalles Dam, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)”. The Government intends to procure this requirement on a competitive basis in accordance with the provisions set forth in FAR Part 15 Acquisition of Non-Commercial Items, Contracting by Negotiations and within this Request For Proposal (RFP).

The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth below. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes. The Volumes are 1 – Technical Proposal and 2 – Price Proposal. The use of hyperlinks in electronic proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

L-2 GENERAL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

a. Binding

Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder, of standard letter (8 ½ x 11-inch) size and hardback construction. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated. Each binder shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5) on both the cover and the spine.

b. Organization – Volumes

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

1. Volume 1: Technical Proposal

2. Volume 2: Price Proposal

c. Quantity

The following quantities of copies shall be submitted:

1. Volume 1: Technical Proposal 1 original – clearly marked 4 copies 1 electronic (defined in paragraph L-3 of this Section)

2. Volume 2: Price Proposal 1 original – clearly marked 2 copies 1 electronic (defined in paragraph L-3 of this Section)

d. Content – General

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that criterion was provided. Offerors submitting proposals should limit submission to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and money is expended in preparing information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP). Penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

e. Table of Contents

A Table of Contents should be incorporated within Volume 1 and Volume 2.

f. Paper size

Proposals are to be on 8 ½ x 11-inch paper, to the maximum extent practicable. Drawings shall be 11x17-inch paper, folded to the same dimensions as the 8 ½ x 11-inch paper. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive/ extensive visual and other presentation aids are not necessary. Each proposal should address the requests for information in the order identified in Section L.

g. Tabs

Contents of binders shall be tabbed and labeled to afford easy identification from the proposal Table of Contents.

Tabs shall extend beyond the edge of the 8 ½ x 11-inch paper. Tabs are further defined in paragraph 0 of this Section.

h. Page Numbering

All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer.

i. Page Limits

The number of pages for submission is limited to 100 pages, this does not include the past performance information.

L-3 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

a. File format

The electronic proposal shall be Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader.

b. Number of files

The proposal contents shall be presented as a separate PDF file for technical and a separate PDF file for price.

c. Method of submission

The electronic version of the proposals may be submitted via either method:

1. Compact Disc (CD): Suitably protected and submitted with the physical binders. CDs may be placed in the front pocket of the ORIGINAL copy only. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. Zip disks and USB thumb drives are not permitted.

2. Electronic Mail: Proposals that, when combined into a single .pdf file are less than 10 MB, may be submitted via email to the contacts listed on FBO.gov. The USACE e-mail system does not accept files greater than 10MB. It is the offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of e-mail submitted electronic proposal copies.

d. Content

Content shall match that of the original binder copy. Page numbers shall match the original binder copy. If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version, the hard copy will govern.

e. Bookmarks

Electronic Proposals shall be bookmarked. At a minimum, bookmarks shall be provided to match the tabs used in the physical copy. Bookmark titles shall match the tab numbering and labels and the volume table of contents.

Additional bookmarks may be provided, but shall be nested under the appropriate tab bookmark.

f. Hyperlinks

Hyperlinks in the electronic copy are not permitted. This includes hyperlinks within document, such as Figure or Table references to the page containing that content, and hyperlinks to websites.

g. Attachments

Attachments to the electronic copy are not permitted.

L-4 TABS

Tabs shall match the following numbering and title, and shall be reflected in the table of contents. Additional tabs are allowed, but not necessary. Additional tabs shall be alpha characters.

REQUIRED TABS FOR VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Table of Contents

Factor 1 (Tab 1): Experience

Sub-factor 1 (Tab 1): Site Assembly and Erection Experience

Sub-factor 2 (Tab 1): Transformer Manufacturing Facility (ies) Experience

Factor 2: (Tab 2): Past Performance

Factor 3: (Tab 3): Manufacturing & On-site Work Plan

Factor 4: (Tab 4): Manufacturer Quality Control

Factor 5: (Tab 5): Nameplate Drawings & Data

Factor 6: (Tab 6): Small Business Participation Plan

REQUIRED TABS FOR VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

Table of Contents

Factor 7: Price Proposal

Tab 1: SF33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award

Tab 2: Cost/Price Schedule

Tab 3: Representations and Certifications

Tab 4A: Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Only)

Tab 4B: Most Recent Annual Subcontracting Report (Large Business Only)

Tab 5: Bid Guarantee

L-5 DETAILED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Technical Proposal, Volume I: (one original and five copies and one pdf. file on a CD-ROM) consists of five factors with sub-factors listed in tabular form. Repeating or restating the specifications without sufficient elaboration will be determined to show a lack of understanding of the requirement.

Factor 1: Experience (TAB 1)

The offeror shall provide project information for the stated minimum number of recent and relevant projects for each subfactor. The Offeror must submit a letter of commitment for any subcontractor where subcontractor experience is used to demonstrate experience under either subfactor. Upon award, subcontractors proposed to be used to complete the assembly, erection, and/or manufacturing portion of the contract shall not be substituted without the Contracting Officer’s written prior approval.* Recent and relevant projects that are those projects completed or substantially completed** in the past 5 years that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity with this project, as described in Specification Section 01 11 00.00 25 SUMMARY OF WORK.

Factor 1: Sub-factor 1 (TAB 1): Site Assembly and Erection Experience The offeror shall submit three recent and relevant projects demonstrating site assembly and erection experience comparable in size, scope, and complexity with the site assembly and erection requirements for this project, as described in Specification Section 01 11 00.00 25 SUMMARY OF WORK. Project information for each project submitted shall contain:

A detailed description of the project and the contractor’s involvement in the project (state percentage performed and whether performed as subcontractor or prime);

Name of a current representative for the project and contact information;

Contract awarded amount;

Project location;

Project start date;

Project completion date; and Transformer manufacturer.

Factor 1: Sub-factor 2 (TAB 1): Transformer Manufacturing Facility(ies) Experience The offeror shall submit all transformers manufactured, per proposed facility, in the last ten years of experience demonstrating transformer manufacturing experience comparable in size, scope, and complexity with the transformer manufacturing requirements for this project, as described in Specification Section 01 11 00.00 25 SUMMARY OF WORK. Project information for each project submitted shall contain in tabular format:

Transformer type manufactured (GSU, Auto, etc.);

Number of phases;

Rating (in MVA)***;

Voltage class (kV)***;

Year manufactured/installed; and Fiber-optic temperature probes embedded in windings.

* An offeror will not be treated unfavorably for failing to utilize a subcontractor to perform any portion of the work.

** Substantially completed is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission.

***Submit information for transformers manufactured with a rating of at least 50 MVA and voltage class above 230kV.

Factor 2: Past Performance (TAB 2)

The offeror shall provide past performance information for three to five recent and relevant projects. Recent and relevant projects are those projects completed or substantially completed* in the past five years that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity with this project as described in Specification Section 01 11 00.00 25

SUMMARY OF WORK.

* Substantially completed is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission.

If a completed CPARS evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the standard Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for USACE is Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11) and it is provided as Attachment A to the solicitation. PPQ-0 is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal under Factor 2, Past Performance, and for which a completed CPARS evaluation is not available. (Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.) Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment A), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow- up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Gary R Weir, via email at gary.r.weir@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer the solicitation number in the subject line. The PPQs are Source Selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an e-mail confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is their responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS, including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Factor 3: Manufacturing & On-site Work Plan (TAB 3)

The Manufacturing & On-site Work Plan must include:

A detailed narrative of the offeror’s technical approach for design, manufacture, transport, assemble/erect, and testing of several transformer types at the tolerances and schedule windows required in the specifications;

Information on procedures used to manage the sub-contractors and vendors that are proposed to be used for this contract, if any;

A project schedule in Gnatt Chart format using the critical path method (MS Project 2007 or Primavera P6 software) showing a planned schedule to complete the project. At a minimum, the schedule shall include the design, procurement of major supplies, manufacturing, transportation and storage, on-site assembly/erecting, on-site testing, and commissioning of all transformer banks. The schedule shall also include on-site mobilization and demobilization, any identified work windows, critical submittals, interim milestones, and contract completion date;

Drawings of all four transformer designs;

Proposed core construction and lamination grade for all four transformer designs;

Table providing the maximum guaranteed values for all four transformer designs: load losses (in kW);

average sound level (in dB); no-load losses. The successful offeror’s proposed levels shall be incorporated into the contract as the guaranteed maximum load losses (in kW), guaranteed maximum average sound level (in dB), and guaranteed maximum no-load losses for all four transformer designs if less than the maximum levels within the solicitation.

Factor 4: Manufacturer Quality Control (TAB 4)

The Offeror shall provide the following information:

Location of manufacturing facility(ies) proposed to be used along with the manufacturing facility(ies) current* ISO 9001 certificate(s) and

A letter of intent to seek ISO 9001 recertification for each proposed facility in order to maintain uninterrupted certification for the life of the contract.

The Offeror shall not substitute any proposed manufacturing facility (ies) without the Contracting Officer’s written prior approval.

*Current means that the certificate(s) have not expired prior to the offeror’s proposal being submitted and that will remain active for a minimum of 18 months after submission of offer.

Factor 5: Nameplate Drawings & Data (TAB 5)

* This Factor only will be rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable.

Offerors shall provide the following Nameplate information for each transformer design types:

Single or Three phase;

Frequency;

kVA rating at each cooling level;

Winding diagram indicating:

o Voltage and connection (if applicable) of high voltage winding (H);

o Voltage and connection (if applicable) of low voltage winding (X);

o Location of required winding taps;

Class and stages of cooling;

Percent design impedance at the 100% kVA rating;

Basic impulse level (BIL) ratings for primary winding (H), secondary winding (X), and high-voltage neutral (H0), if different than the line end.

Factor 6: Small Business Participation Plan (TAB 6)

All offerors (both large and small businesses) shall submit the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) template found at Attachment B. A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 5% of the total contract value (through small business participation from small-, small disadvantaged-, HUBZone-, Service Disabled Vet-, Vet-, or Woman-owned businesses is required based on the nature of the work for this project. The offeror should articulate how small businesses will participate through performance as either a small business prime or as a subcontractor offeror as well as demonstrating the past performance of the offeror in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Offerors are required to submit information that can be verified on at least three projects that demonstrate the degree (both by dollar and by percent of total contract value) to which the contractor utilized small business firms in performing the project. For small business offerors, consideration will be given to self performance if a small business for that project, as well as for providing subcontracting opportunities to small businesses - as is the policy of the government. For large business offerors, in addition to the information for the three required projects, consideration may also include review of ISR’s (Individual Subcontract Reports) and SSR’s (Summary Subcontract Report) from the eSRS (Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System). The project information submitted for the small business participation plan evaluation does not have to be the same as those listed in Factor 2.

L-6 DETAILED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUME 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed prices. There are no page limitations for this volume.

Factor 6: Price Proposal (TAB 1-5)

TAB 1: SF33, SOLICITATION, ALL AMENDMENTS AND OFFER

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The SF33 shall be filled out completely by the offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 in Block 14 and the summary of changes.

TAB 2: PRICE PROPOSAL

Provide a complete Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices.

TAB 3: SECTION K – COMPLETED REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

The offerors shall complete all Representations and Certifications, and also ensure current registration and updated annual Representations and Certifications on the System of Award Management (SAM) website, https://www.sam.gov.

TAB 4: SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (LARGE BUSINESS ONLY)

Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business (e.g. Large Business) offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan) contained in Section I, Contract Clauses. Large businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.

Large Businesses shall provide a completed Subcontracting Plan and most recent annual subcontracting report. A model subcontracting plan is included as Attachment C to this solicitation. For information on the evaluation of subcontracting plans, see Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Appendix DD.

TAB 5: BID GUARANTEE

A bid guarantee equal to 20% of the total price or $3,000,000.00, whichever is less, shall be submitted with the offer.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATIONS OF AWARD

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. SOURCE SELECTION

All proposals conforming to the solicitation requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Sections “L,” “M,” and the Source Selection Plan. The principle objective of the evaluation process is to make award of a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be the “best value” to the Government, price and other factors considered. Should the Government determine that the award of a contract is not in the best interest of the Government, the contract award will not take place.

2. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to. The identities of the SSEB personnel are confidential, and any attempt by the offerors to contact these individuals is prohibited.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1 As established in Sections L “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors” and M, “Evaluation Factors for Award” of the solicitation, the following criteria will form the basis of proposal evaluation. Volume 1 – Technical Proposal is divided into five factors. Volume 2 – Cost/Price Proposal will be evaluated in accordance with Paragraph 4.3.

Non-Cost Evaluation Factors are as follows:

Factor 1: Experience (with two subfactors) Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Manufacturing & On-site Work Plan Factor 4: Manufacturer Quality Control Factor 5: Nameplate Drawings & Data Factor 6: Small Business Participation Plan

Price Evaluation Factor: Factor 7: Price

3.2 Summary of Order of Importance for Evaluation Criteria

3.2.1 Factor 4 and Factor 5 are evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis; Factor 1 is more important than factor 2; Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3; Factor 3 is more important than Factor 6. All sub-factors within Factor 1 are equal to one another. When combined, factors 1, 2, 3 and 6 are significantly more important than price.

3.3 The cost/price portion of the proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

3.4 All non-price factors other than Factor 2 - Past Performance, Factor 4 - Manufacturer Quality Control and Factor 5 – Nameplate Drawings & Data will be rated using the following combined technical/risk ratings. Technical merit, which reflects the Government’s confidence in each offeror’s ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP, shall be evaluated based on the following:

3.4.1 Blue - Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

3.4.2 Purple - Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

3.4.3 Green - Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

3.4.4 Yellow - Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

3.4.5 Red - Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

3.5 Past performance ratings assess the risks associated with each offeror’s likelihood of success in performing requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent contracts. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral rating for these factors.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation; the relevance of the offeror past performance history and a confidence assessment.

Each past performance evaluation will be characterized for relevance using the following rating criteria:

3.5.1 Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.5.2 Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.5.3 Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.5.4 Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.6 The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts [aspect number two]. The Government will determine the relevance of the information by considering the age of the information, source of the information and context of the data. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

At the conclusion of this process of evaluating past performance, an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is assigned to each offeror. The possible ratings, along with their descriptions, are as follows:

3.6.1 Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3.6.2 Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3.6.3 Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3.3.4 No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.6.5 Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government will evaluate the information submitted in Section L of the RFP in accordance with the criteria below.

4.1 Volume 1: Factor 1 – Experience

4.1.1 Subfactor 1: Site Assembly and Erection Experience (Tab 1) The Government will review the submitted projects to evaluate the extent, relevance, and timing of the offeror’s experience. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will give a higher rating to the following:

Projects more directly related to this Scope of Work.

Larger number of relevant projects.

More recently completed projects.

Projects at hydroelectric sites in the following order of preference: USACE projects, other

Federal Hydoelectric projects, other hydroelectric projects.

Experience working with proposed transformer manufacturer.

4.1.2 Subfactor 2: Transformer Manufacturing Facility(ies) Experience (Tab 2) The Government will review the submitted projects to evaluate the extent, relevance, and timing of the offeror’s experience. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will give a higher rating to the following:

Offerors demonstrating more experience in manufacturing transformers similar in size, scope, and complexity to the transformers required by the specifications, as described in Specification Section 01 11 00.00 25 SUMMARY OF WORK.

Experience with GSU transformer design.

Projects which include fiber-optic temperature probes embedded in the windings.

Projects which include oil filled transformers rated greater than 230kV and/or greater than 50

MVA.

4.2 Volume 1: Factor 2 – Past Performance (Tab 2)

The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in his technical proposal. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “experience” are not identical. Experience measures what you have done and how many times, or for how long, you have done it. Past performance, however, measures how well you have performed.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The offeror will be given a rating on Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and a separate rating on Performance Confidence Assessments.

The rating for Past Performance Relevancy will be determined based of the offeror’s contract history to measure closely the Past Performance effort involved similarity of scope and magnitude of effort, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming, and complexities this solicitation requires.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the Table below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

RATING DEFINITION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude

Relevant of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessment rating will determine how well the offeror performed in the recent/relevant contracts. Based on that performance record, the Government will determine how well the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and

DFARS 215.305(a)(2).

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the Table below. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

Performance Confidence Assessments

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Important Note: The evaluation board will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to.

Past Performance (Factor 2) on projects that are similar in size and scope to this project may be considered to be more advantageous to the Government. Thus, the Government will take into consideration the age and relevance of past performance information and the offeror’s overall performance record. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken. More favorable ratings may be given to proposal that demonstrate past performance on projects of similar scope and complexity. More favorable rating will given to projects with higher satisfaction of past customers with the offeror’s goods or services, a proven ability to maintain supply/installation schedules, and a record of accomplishing work within budget. The Government will evaluate the currency and relevancy of the information, which may help the government assess performance risk.

Past performance questionnaires (PPQs) and/or ratings in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS), indicating high levels of customer satisfaction, completing in advance of original contract schedule, finding innovative ways to cut costs, or increase value to the customer, will receive a higher rating.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4.3 Volume 1: Factor 3 – Manufacturing & Onsite Work Plan (Tab 3) The goal of this factor is to determine the extent of the Offeror’s understanding of the technical approach, coordination and constraints that are required to successfully complete the work to design, manufacture, transport, assemble/erect, and testing of several transformer types. This contract will likely involve a number of sub-contractors and suppliers. This effort will also be challenged to be able to maintain access through and across the project location. The Dalles Dam is an active operating project and project personnel will require access across the project at all times (except for limited coordinated temporary access closure of no more than 4 hours during the day). The Manufacturing & On-site Work Plan that is submitted should demonstrate that the offeror understands these constraints. Each offeror’s proposal will be given an individual rating for the entire Manufacture & On-site Work Plan Factor.

The Government will review the submitted Manufacturing & On-site Work Plan to evaluate the approach, understanding, resources, knowledge, safety, and sequencing of the offeror’s proposal. Each offeror will be rated based on how well their proposal demonstrates understanding of the solicitation requirements, steps needed to meet the requirement, and reasonableness of the plan for dealing with schedule constraints and technical risks that are associated with the required work.. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will give a higher rating to Manufacturing & On-site Work Plans that demonstrate:

A thorough understanding of each major feature of work that is required in order to fulfill the

Government’s requirement;

The ability to handle the transformers;

A realistic approach for completing the work;

A thorough understanding of the manufacturing requirements;

Lower Load losses (in KW), average sound level (in dB), and/or no-load losses.

Schedule practicality, flexibility, and thoroughness. A highly rated schedule will demonstrate that the offeror fully understands the required work, any contingencies that may arise and how to deal with them, the site constraints, the quality control process related to schedule, and has a realistic plan to complete the work on time;

An understanding of final tolerance measurement and adjustment.

4.4 Volume 1: Factor 4 – Manufacturer Quality Control (Tab 4)

The Government will review the submitted ISO 9001 certificate(s) to ensure the company who performed the ISO 9001 audits is an authorized certifier, the date is current, and it matches the proposed facility location.

Offerors who provide certificate(s) that is valid, current, and the proposed facility location matches the respective ISO 9001 certificate will be given an acceptable rating. Offerors who do not provide a certificate(s) for each manufacturing facility, provides a certificate that was performed by an unauthorized certifier, provides a certificate that has or will expire and no letter of intent to seek ISO 9001 recertification, or the proposed facility location does not match the respective ISO 9001 certificate will be given an unacceptable rating.

4.5 Volume 1: Factor 5 – Nameplate Drawing & Data (Tab 5)

The Government will review the submitted Nameplate drawings and data. Offerors who provide all information will be given an acceptable rating. Offer’s who do not provide all information will be given an unacceptable rating.

4.6 Volume 1, Factor 6: Small Business Participation Plan

Using the SBPP template found at Attachment B to this solicitation, the government will evaluate offerors on the extent of the planned participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition as follows:

a. The total level of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition vs the large business participation percentage.

b. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the suggested socioeconomic category goals. These goals are a percentage of the value of the total acquisition. A mandatory minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 5% of the total contract value is assigned to this acquisition.

In addition to the mandatory Small Business goal of 5% of the TOTAL contract value, the following goals are suggested for the individual socioeconomic categories and determined to be reasonable based on market research for this requirement. Goals are based on % of TOTAL contract value:

{1.5%} Small Disadvantaged Business {1%} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {1%} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {5%} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {2%} Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

c. Identification of the firms, as defined in FAR Part 19 (small-, small disadvantaged-, HUBZone-, Service Disabled Vet-, Vet-, or Woman-owned businesses) are specifically identified in proposal by name (for Large Business prime ability to verify in the subcontracting plan as well) and the complexity and variety of the work(work requiring specific certifications ie welding, mechanical, electrical, fabrication, supply, etc.) to be provided by small businesses.

d. The extent (ie. length of and formality considerations) of demonstrated commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments (JV, MP or written teaming agreements) will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones;

e. Verifiable past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, (both small and Large businesses) and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business primes only).

NOTE: For Large Businesses only. No award can be made until a firm required to submit a subcontracting plan has an acceptable plan in place. The plan’s goals must conform to the goals provided in the Small Business Participation Plan (taking into account total dollars subcontracted vs. total contract value as basis for development of the goals) and must contain the mandatory plan requirements outlined in

FAR 19.704.

.6 Volume 2, Factor 6: Price Proposal

4.6 .1 Volume 2, Tab 1 – SF33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The SF33 shall be filled out completely by the offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 in Block 14 and the summary of changes.

4.6.2 Volume 2, Tab 2 – Cost/Price Schedule

The price proposal will be evaluated to determine reasonableness. The Government will consider not only the total for all line items, but also the prices for individual Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS) in the evaluation to ensure prices are not unbalanced. Price will be evaluated on the total for line items, to include optional items.

4.6.3 Volume 2, Tab 3 – Representations and Certifications

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness and completeness. The offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section K and also complete the required Annual Representations and Certifications through the System of Award Management (SAM) https://www.sam.gov.

4.6.4 Volume 2, Tab 4 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed for acceptability in the following areas:

The offeror can meet subcontracting plan goals The offeror’s goals are consistent with their proposed cost or price The offeror will honor the terms of the subcontract agreements (i.e. timely payments of amounts owed, use of firms cited in the proposal, etc.), and The plan includes the offeror’s commitment to adopt and comply with its requirements and goals for small business utilization.

4.6.5 Volume 2, Tab 5 - Bid Guarantee

The bid guarantee will be reviewed to ensure it is appropriate and complete, properly signed and in sufficient amount.

5. BASIS OF AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of Non-Cost Factors and Price. The Government intends to award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value in terms of the factors and sub-factors in the solicitation. The Government will consider awarding to other than the lowest priced Offeror or the other than highest technically rated Offeror. The Government will consider tradeoffs among price and non-cost factors. The non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The closer the total evaluated non-price ratings are to one another, the greater importance of the price evaluation in making the Best Value determination. The closer the final price evaluations are to one another, the greater the importance of the total evaluated non-cost ratings in making the Best Value determination.

The Government intends to make award based upon initial offers. However, in the event it is determined that conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

6 IMPORTANCE OF VOLUMES

The evaluation process uses adjectival rating for each volume except for Volume 2 containing the cost/price information of the proposals. The cost and pricing information found in Volume 2 will be subjectively evaluated.

7 PROPOSAL REVISIONS

If award is not made on initial offers, discussions will be held with all firms in the competitive range. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision. These proposal revisions shall be received, in writing, at a time and place established by the Contracting Officer.

8 AWARD OF CONTRACT

8.1 The Government will evaluate proposals and may award without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

8.2 The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed-Price Supply contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is considered the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

8.3 The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

9 DEBRIEFING

Upon written request, firms will be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award in accordance with h FAR 15.505 – Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors or FAR 15.506 – Post-award Debriefing Offerors. Offerors will be permitted only one (1) debriefing upon written request for debriefing to the contracting officer within three days after receipt of notice of exclusion from the competition.

(End of Summary of Changes)